Monday, February 19, 2007

Passive aggressive

Jim Lobe notes the deep contrast between the current neocon propaganda war against Iran and the neocon propaganda war which led to the attack on Iraq.  The differences are even more striking if you consider the propaganda coming from the Bush Administration itself.  The lies about Iraq were ubiquitous and unrelenting.  There was essentially no dissent from the Bush Administration position, either in the reporting of the mainstream media or the statements of the spokesmodels for the Administration. 

Iran is completely different.  The lies are coming from anonymous sources, as if nobody wants to be associated with them.  The New York Times has them re-typed by the joke named Michael Gordon (Pinocchio has a more credible by-line, and it is as if some trickster in the Times is trying to subvert the Zionist lies of the ownership by having someone as obvious as Gordon do the re-typing).  Important officials, often strikingly from the higher levels of the Pentagon (hardly an anti-war crowd), are obviously off-message.  Even Bush can’t keep a consistent hard-line position.

The deep structure of the propaganda war is different.  Remember Feith and the lies produced by the office of Special Plans?  There is an equivalent lying group for Iran, but there is nothing like the same quantity and quality of ‘stovepiping’.  Indeed, almost all the manipulation of intelligence, which formed the base story of the preamble to the attack on Iraq, is missing.  So what’s going on?

I think Bush is trying to satisfy two masters.  A passive-aggressive drunk like Bush can’t say no to anybody.  The Zionists, both Christian and Jewish, blood dripping – as always – from their fangs, are screaming for yet another murderous attack.  At the same time, Bush’s father’s friends have decided that American Establishment interests require an obvious effort by the U. S. to calm the Middle East.  Bush tells the Zionists he is working as fast as he can within the limits of the powerful anti-Semites around him.  The propaganda war, such as it is, is intended to make it seem that he is doing something for them.  On the other hand, he is telling his father’s friends not to worry, that he is managing the Zionists.  The ‘surge’ and the usual abandonment of the Palestinians is the sop he is throwing to the Zionists to assuage their lust for blood while he delays them on Iran.

Of course, if Bush keeps delaying, the Establishment wins and the Zionists lose.  The Establishment feels comfortable that they can avert the ultimate disaster of an attack on Iran, but fears a traitorous Gulf of Tonkin incident arranged by Zionists in the Gulf  (thus the peculiar ‘conspiracy theory’ warning by Brzezinski).

The history of American Establishment views is interesting in itself, and also explains the blood-thirstiness of American Zionists.  The recent military loss of Israel in Lebanon was a disaster for Israel for many reasons, not the least of which was that it highlighted to the American Establishment, asleep at the wheel for years, that:

  1. Israel’s judgment could no longer be trusted; and
  2. Israel’s interests in the Middle East were not the same as American Establishment interests, and constant Israeli meddling in aid of Zionist colonialism would soon imperil American money, thus necessitating a change in American policy towards the Middle East.

Suddenly, in the wake of Lebanon, the Walt-Mearsheimer paper made perfect sense.  The only other time in the last thirty years that the United States hasn’t blindly followed Zionist policies in the Middle East came after the previous disastrous attack by Israel on Lebanon (unrelenting Israeli avarice for Lebanese land and water may end up being the real cause of the end of Israel).  That small window of American sanity and independence in the 80’s came at the instance of a Reagan Administration official named James Baker!

The history explains why the American Zionists are so crazed about Iran, sometimes literally, in the case of Pipes and Dershowitz, foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs.  The Zionists have put all their eggs in the basket of American support.  Israel, easily the most hated nation in the world, has only one friend, and apparently no prospect of any others.  Everybody, including the Zionists, knows that Iran poses no real threat to Israel.  If Iran is very lucky in its science, changes its research interests, and has no moderation in its politics for the next ten years, there is a small chance that it might end up with a few bombs that would create, at most, the beginnings of mutually assured destruction with Israel and its nukes.  So why all the Zionist preoccupation with Iran?  The United States has to ‘prove its love’.  The insecure Zionists quite properly fear the loss of American servitude.  Israel keeps setting higher and higher tests for the Americans to follow if they are to remain tools of the Zionists.  Lebanon was such a test and, for the first time ever, the Americans failed to take the Israeli bait.  Thus the need to create the most insane test of all, an attack on Iran that would permanently destroy American wealth and power.